At the Exposure ShowI headed to Mississauga, Ontario yesterday for the Exposure Show. It’s basically a small trade show where Henry’s Photo sells stuff. It’s quite brilliant really.

I only go to see people I know that all end up there at the same time, there wasn’t much going gear wise. Though I was surprised to see the new EF 24 f/2.8 IS and EF 24-70 f/2.8L II available to play with. Canon didn’t have the 28 f/2.8 IS with them.

Unfortunately, Canon was probably placed in the worst lit area on the show floor, no art or great photos could be made with the new lenses, though I tried.

Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

Thoughts
The new lens feels quite solid in your hand. Though I didn’t find it felt that much lighter, even though it technically is. If I had a version 1 beside it, along with its massive hood, I think I’d probably notice the weight difference then.

The zoom ring is quite smooth, and the lens now extends in telephoto and not at 24mm like the current version.

I tried it out on the 5D Mark III and found the autofocus to be silent and nearly instant to acquire initial focus. Optically? I honestly can’t tell you, I had to shoot at such high ISO and there wasn’t really anything to take shots of. I’ve added a couple of 100% images and you can see for yourself.

Flake

"Unfortunately, Canon was probably placed in the worst lit area on the show floor, no art or great photos could be made with the new lenses, though I tried."

Which is why the 24 - 105mm IS L will continue to be the better lens when light levels are low with sharp images being possible as low as 1/6th sec.

I've never yet heard any client say images would be better if a sharper lens than the 24 - 105mm was used, so what's the point in a lens which weighs twice as much costs three times as much and has a reduced zoom range, and can't take decent photos when the light drops away?

Want a blurred background? Then use a prime! 2.8 is only just wide enough anyway.

blarygake

"Unfortunately, Canon was probably placed in the worst lit area on the show floor, no art or great photos could be made with the new lenses, though I tried."

Which is why the 24 - 105mm IS L will continue to be the better lens when light levels are low with sharp images being possible as low as 1/6th sec.

I've never yet heard any client say images would be better if a sharper lens than the 24 - 105mm was used, so what's the point in a lens which weighs twice as much costs three times as much and has a reduced zoom range, and can't take decent photos when the light drops away?

Want a blurred background? Then use a prime! 2.8 is only just wide enough anyway.

The 24-105 IS L is an f4 lensWho wants to deal with that in low light situations with moving subjects?Get ready to crank up the ISO :\

"Unfortunately, Canon was probably placed in the worst lit area on the show floor, no art or great photos could be made with the new lenses, though I tried."

Which is why the 24 - 105mm IS L will continue to be the better lens when light levels are low with sharp images being possible as low as 1/6th sec.

I've never yet heard any client say images would be better if a sharper lens than the 24 - 105mm was used, so what's the point in a lens which weighs twice as much costs three times as much and has a reduced zoom range, and can't take decent photos when the light drops away?

Want a blurred background? Then use a prime! 2.8 is only just wide enough anyway.

The 24-105 IS L is an f4 lensWho wants to deal with that in low light situations with moving subjects?Get ready to crank up the ISO :\

Cafard_Naum

each person make a different kind of photography, so each person need a diffeent gear that suits his needs.Like Blarygake, I can't imagine myself with a lens limited to f/4.

The 24-70 f/2.8 is used by concerts photographer.We are not talking about photos at 400 or 800 ISO.99% of my photos are taken at 1600 ISO, the max I can do with my 40D (3200 is too noisy), with my 17-55 f/2.8. Sometimes I even stop breathing and activate the IS to be not too blurry at 1/10s.

I was waiting this 5D MkIII which is also used a lot by concert photographer, a lot of them use it to film some video clips during concert. The performance at high ISO and the silent mode are just perfect for this kind of work, and the 24-70 is just the perfect lens for us.

Anyway, like blarygake I'm very surprised by the noise on the second photo of the this post.Is it the jpg from the camera ? A raw processed image ?It looks like a Lightroom noise reduction but I'm not sure. Or DPP ?

I have no doubt this lens is going to be super sharp..However, for someone like myself who don't shoot for a living and already own a 24-105, i can't justify buying it with this pricing (although not launched, we know it's expensive)Maybe when using the the 5Dmk2 or APS-C cameras, an F2.8 will be helpful in low light situations. In fact the i bet if you could use something like an f1.8 or lower it would be even better but this is as good as a zoom gets.

But with the 5Dmk3 (which i own), i'm finding myself not in need of such a lens. I don't find the 24-105 blur, maybe not as sharp but definately sharp enough for most shoots. And with the 5Dmk3's high ISO capabilities, there's really no need for an F2.8 UNLESS you can afford one…the IS on the 24-105 almost makes up for the 1 stop difference. I've shot at ISO12800 with the 24-105 many times with no probems and that's why i took my interest away from the 24-70mk2 simply because i think although it's good to have the f2.8, i don't really need it and won't sacrifice the 105mm just because of it and well, more importantly, the price.

I have no doubt this lens is going to be super sharp..However, for someone like myself who don't shoot for a living and already own a 24-105, i can't justify buying it with this pricing (although not launched, we know it's expensive)Maybe when using the the 5Dmk2 or APS-C cameras, an F2.8 will be helpful in low light situations. In fact the i bet if you could use something like an f1.8 or lower it would be even better but this is as good as a zoom gets.

But with the 5Dmk3 (which i own), i'm finding myself not in need of such a lens. I don't find the 24-105 blur, maybe not as sharp but definately sharp enough for most shoots. And with the 5Dmk3's high ISO capabilities, there's really no need for an F2.8 UNLESS you can afford one…the IS on the 24-105 almost makes up for the 1 stop difference. I've shot at ISO12800 with the 24-105 many times with no probems and that's why i took my interest away from the 24-70mk2 simply because i think although it's good to have the f2.8, i don't really need it and won't sacrifice the 105mm just because of it and well, more importantly, the price.